Gay Marriage

[Upchurch]

What you're saying is that the government should go to great trouble, rewriting large chunks of property and custody law (and most likely creating a real legal and tax headache in the process), and bloating its bureaucratic overhead to keep track of it all, on account of a tiny fraction of people who want to get married in a way that the vast majority of people don't support, and with no legally compelling reason to allow it.

Look, these types of structures already exist in the form of corporate laws and those haven't seem to have put any undue burden on the government.

That's an anti-libertarian viewpoint, if you ask me. You're looking to make the government bigger, not smaller. Pass more laws, not fewer.

You're partly right. The true libertarian stance would be to abolish legal marriage altogether, in which case all relationships would have the same legal standing anyway: none.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

And in the regard of interracial marriage everyone had the same rights, in that case none.

This is absolutely correct in every detail except all.

 

[Z]

There's no excuse required. Without any discrimination issues involved, "because we don't want to" is all the justification the government needs.

What you're saying is that the government should go to great trouble, rewriting large chunks of property and custody law (and most likely creating a real legal and tax headache in the process), and bloating its bureaucratic overhead to keep track of it all, on account of a tiny fraction of people who want to get married in a way that the vast majority of people don't support, and with no legally compelling reason to allow it.

That's an anti-libertarian viewpoint, if you ask me. You're looking to make the government bigger, not smaller. Pass more laws, not fewer.

Complete nonsense. Nothing would have to be rewritten at all. There are ALREADY court cases involving multiple adults in the system. There have already been cases of girlfriends getting custody of children from their boyfriends' wives, etc. These things are already happening. No great body of law need be re-written at all. In fact, the only law that needs be changed is the one denying marriage to three or more people.

There is no argument against polyamorous marriage that hasn't already been dealt with. And there are no legal situations that can arise from a poly-marriage that have not already arisen and been dealt with, perfectly amicably.

Even property laws have already had to deal with three- and four-way splits.

Consider: At the moment, my wife and I live with another woman. I am on the OTHER woman's insurance plan, not my wife's (her company has a problem with us having two different last names, while our housemate's doesn't care one whit who she puts on the plan). I have powers of attorney over my housemate's kids - over and ABOVE their natural father's rights. Our housemate owns the house, but my wife and I are entitled a partial share should the house be sold due to the nature of the contract we all entered into.

We have already, as a three-adult household, had to deal with social services, gaining public assistance, dealing with school issues, dealt with custody battles, medical insurance issues, and so forth. And every decision was treated exactly as if we were a polyamorous marriage.

So what would have to change?

NOTHING.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, and you were wrong then, too. Especially for a small-government proponent, the idea that the government's default position should be to offer a service unless there is an active reason prohibiting it is somewhat odd.

For the record, I'm not a small government proponent, per se. I said I was taking a libertarian stance on this.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Adminstrative convenience alone would be a legitimate reason.

We could save even more bureaucracy by abolishing marriage altogether. I also suggest that we abandon the antiquated concept of "names" and just have barcodes tattooed on our foreheads. Think of the convenience!

 

[toddjh]

So what would have to change?

NOTHING.

Until you get divorced, or the other woman decides she wants to leave...

And what health insurance company is this that allows people to put non-spouses and non-dependents on the plan? I'd like more information.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, it couldn't. My argument is that a law is discriminatory if it prohibits certain actions to one group, but not to another.

Laws against interracial marriage prohibit the marrying of a white woman to black men while allowing it to white men.

Laws against homosexual marriage prohibit the marrying of a man to men, while allowing it to women.

Laws against polygamy prohibit the marrying of more than one person to everybody*.

What you are trying to define the certain action as whatever someone happens to want to do, as in "Laws against polygamy prohibit polygamists from doing what they want to do while allowing monogamists to do what they want to do. This discriminates against polygamists." The problem is that what they want to do is not a constant. You are not denying and allowing the same thing.

To accept this as discriminatory, you would have to accept all prohibitive laws as discriminatory, at which point the word loses any useful meaning. "Laws against stabbing puppies prohibit puppy-stabbers from doing what they want to do while allowing puppy-petters to do what they want to do. This discriminates against puppy-stabbers."

*I suppose you could say that polygamy laws do disciminate against the already married, as they are in fact prohibited from marrying, whereas single persons are not, but by definition married persons are already exercising their right.

The problem is that others do not see how placing a uniform restriction on everyone can be discrimination in some instances and not in others. Everyone has the same option for marrying now, and that is a partner of the oposite sex. The reason it is discrimination is that some people want a partner of the same sex. Well why does that count as discrimination but limited people to one partner is not?

You are in both blocking people form marying the people they want to.

 

[Upchurch]

With a more complicated system you would be raising the bar, and there are people who would fail to take advantage of their rights because of the bureaucracy created by such a system.

How much more complicated do we think this would actually be and why?

So you are costing people rights, at the benefit of granting others rights. This is not nessacarily a poor trade off, but there is a trade off involved.

I don't see how rights are being lost by extending them to more groups of people.

 

[Z]

Until you get divorced, or the other woman decides she wants to leave...

Also already dealt with. Our housemate used to be in a poly relationship, and she left that family. That hit the courts, and was also dealt with amicably.

So, again, nothing would change.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is absolutely correct in every detail except all.

Why?

The other person on your side of the argument seems to be arguing that it is discrimination but that the government is not blocked from such discrimination because number of individuals involved is not a specifically protected category. So even in the side that it is allowable, there is disagreement over if it is discrimination.

 

[Upchurch]

Until you get divorced, or the other woman decides she wants to leave...

and then what? The marriage contract is broken and the remaining members can decide whether or not they want to reform the marriage without the missing member.

Why do we think this would be so obscenely complex?

 

[Z]

Until you get divorced, or the other woman decides she wants to leave...

And what health insurance company is this that allows people to put non-spouses and non-dependents on the plan? I'd like more information.

I'll ask her tonight - be sure to bring it back up tomorrow so I can tell you. (She's at work right now. She works at CVG - er, sorry, the Cincinnati Airport in Kentucky... that still makes my head hurt... for Food Brand.)

What's funny is, she's legally married (but estranged) to another man, but HE'S not on the insurance. Meanwhile, I am, though I have no legal claim to her whatsoever (and am, in fact, married to someone else).

 

[Upchurch]

We could save even more bureaucracy by abolishing marriage altogether. I also suggest that we abandon the antiquated concept of "names" and just have barcodes tattooed on our foreheads. Think of the convenience!

And the tax code. Imagine the bureaucracy we'd lose if we removed that!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whew. I'm glad I didn't say they did.

Your stance implies it, though. Under the current polygamy laws, every individual has the same rights. If there is to be discrimination, there must be some entity that does not possess the same rights as other entities. I cannot imagine what you take those entities to be if not the relationships themselves.

Yes. Drug laws are notoriously inconsistent.

Inconsistent, yes. Discriminatory? Not that I can tell.

No. I'm taking a very libertarian stance on this. Every law that prohibits an action that harms no one other than (possibly) the person or persons electing to participate in the action has the potential to be discriminatory. Laws that prohibit one party from infringing on the rights/life/property/whatever of others are not inherently discriminatory. (unless there is some other factor going on, but I'm generalizing)

I don't see how harm has any bearing on whether or not something is discriminatory. My stance on discrimination is quite straightforward: if a law prohibits an action to certain individuals but not to others, it is discriminatory. (Of course, some laws may well need to be discriminatory, but that's another issue.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

How much more complicated do we think this would actually be and why?

That depends on the form the laws take

I don't see how rights are being lost by extending them to more groups of people.

They are not exactly lost, they have lost the ability to gain them, but they have them on the books. The more difficult and complex marriage is, the more it will seem like too much work to go through with the legal side of it to some people. Do they are losing their rights.

Now you can argue that if they are not willing to jump through enough hoops they deserve to lose their rights, but I would not agree with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll ask her tonight - be sure to bring it back up tomorrow so I can tell you. (She's at work right now. She works at CVG - er, sorry, the Cincinnati Airport in Kentucky... that still makes my head hurt... for Food Brand.)

What's funny is, she's legally married (but estranged) to another man, but HE'S not on the insurance. Meanwhile, I am, though I have no legal claim to her whatsoever (and am, in fact, married to someone else).

Cool, if your wife divorces you, then she has claim on the housemates proptery and possibly her husbands as well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But the problem is that people are lazy, or poor, or not very bright. By having marriage simple you do not have a very high bar to get into a marriage.

It might get so complicated that it would take more than fifteen minutes at a drive-through chapel in Vegas. Maybe they could combine it with a car-wash, so's people wouldn't feel they were wasting their time.

With a more complicated system you would be raising the bar.

Just think of it as the acceptable face of eugenics.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The problem is that others do not see how placing a uniform restriction on everyone can be discrimination in some instances and not in others. Everyone has the same option for marrying now, and that is a partner of the oposite sex. The reason it is discrimination is that some people want a partner of the same sex. Well why does that count as discrimination but limited people to one partner is not?

Look at it from the other side. You have a man. He is available for marriage to whom? As it stands now, to a woman. He is not available for marriage to another man. This is discriminatory against other men.

Now, you have a group of a man and a woman. To whom is this group available for marriage? Nobody. This is not discimination.

 

[toddjh]

and then what? The marriage contract is broken and the remaining members can decide whether or not they want to reform the marriage without the missing member.

Why do we think this would be so obscenely complex?

So all three of them are in a marriage together? And if one person leaves, the whole marriage is dissolved and the other two have to get remarried?

What if John wants to be married to Jane and Sue, but Jane and Sue only want to be married to John and not to each other? Can't discriminate against them, after all, so I guess we'd have to allow that. If John and Sue buy a car, what percentage of it belongs to Jane? Is it solely John and Sue's private property, even though John is also married to Jane? Does Jane own 25% of it, since John owns 50% and they're married?

What if Jimmy, Ralph, and Christina (a three-person mutual marriage) want to add Bill to the group, but he's already married to Christina separately? Do they all have to get divorced and then remarried? Or can he just be slurped into the marriage as a whole? What happens to Christina and Bill's joint assets when that happens? Do they remain Christina and Bill's, or do they become marital assets of the entire group? What about custody of Bill's child with Lisa, his other wife. Do Jimmy, Ralph, and Christina automatically become responsible for his care? Or does that matter stay between Bill and Lisa?

I don't know how you can ask why it would have to be obscenely complex with a straight face. I can't even keep the names straight and I wrote the damn thing!

 

[Z]

Cool, if your wife divorces you, then she has claim on the housemates proptery and possibly her husbands as well.

Yeah, I know. It's a trip.

Of course, her husband apparently has no property - last time we heard from him, he had chosen to live in an alley in Montana somewhere.

Our housemate is finally getting their marriage annulled... he came equipped with non-functional wedding tackle, which is apparently still a legal loophole for getting out of a marriage.

My wife and I looked through all the consequences of divorce recently - not because we were considering it, but because we were curious (on our housemate's behalf, who for a long time was terrified of it). It's amazing just how many rights an adult earns by being chief caretaker or chief income provider, etc...

Apparently, it has something to do with what percent of the household's expenses comes from who, and entitlements are split up accordingly... or something.

Honestly, it's all over my head. I'm still struggling with the idea that still having checks supposedly doesn't mean you still have money...